Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Ilk upon the landscape...

I know I'm naive. I know I'm sheltered. I know I'm insecure...

I seldom, if ever, adventure out into the blogging world at large, to see what others may be saying about the gay "situation". But the other day, through a link with Northern Lights, I got onto a site that was discussing, among other things, about the "ilk" that is a gay man who won't accept that he's gay and chooses instead to be faithfully married to a woman. It made me wonder if within the gay community at large such perceptions by other gay men of men like me ademantly view us as "ilk" - something to despise and be disgusted by.

Is this true?

I have a friend / acquaintance who is gay, who helped me come out to myself. He was once married but eventually shed himself of that burden to be free of those ties that kept him from being who he was. He skillfully showed me the steps to my "exit" from my own marriage and predicted that within a year I would be heading for divorce. Here I am now three years later, still married, still hanging on, still keeping keepin' on... He has since given up on me... and in a round-about way, showed disappointment in me, though giving lip service support to my choices.

Now, I know that those that I follow in this corner of the MOHO queerosphere are almost always kind and supportive of those like me, with the understandable layers added with the Church and its teachings, but it made me wonder if even in this corner, especially among the young and upcoming generation that is "out" and "open" moreso than I would ever have dreamed, really feel the same way - that we who are faithfully married are really considered "ilk" upon the landscape of the MOHO community? I mean, are we really just "tolerated" members of the community who really don't count, because deep down we are still in denial? And with that denial we can't truly be considered valid? Or taken seriously?

13 comments:

When something is difficult to grasp, sometimes people will choose to let it go rather than really try to understand.

For me, it's difficult to understand why someone would choose to stay with a woman when their desire lies with men. It's easy for me to label it under social pressure or some kind of weakness, because I want everybody to be free to do the good things their hearts desire - things that I believe lead to happiness.

But ilk? That's quite extreme. I believe that people will do what they believe makes them happy on some level. So just because I can't ever see myself with a woman because I'm gay, doesn't mean that all people who are gay feel the same way. If they did, they would find a way out of the marriage so they could pursue the life they desire. But you aren't me. And that's the hard thing to remember.

I think what you see with the ilk remarks is an unhealthy dose of projection. Because the human perspective is so limited, people often believe that other people should make the same choices that they make - they project their own reality onto others. They fail to see from other possible perspectives, to put themselves in others' shoes. They would view themselves as ilk for staying in a MOM, and, in return, consider you ilk.

Not you personally, just people like you. It's kind of insidious like that. They think they know best for you, but nobody can no what's best for you but yourself. And maybe your mother.

So chin up! I think people just need to have more faith in other people to make their own decisions without passing judgment.

It's easier for people to understand life using what Buckley calls binary thinking -- it's either this or it's that -- than to have to attempt to understand the many gradations in life. There are gay people who will look down on you, it's true. Gay people as a whole aren't any different from the rest of society, except for their gayness. Many have all the prejudices everyone else has. If the prejudice of others matters to you, be offended. If you can think for yourself, be proud. There are others in the world, gay and straight, who are open to the idea that you are capable of making your own choices and living your own life, rather than playing follow the leader and dumping your marriage because "other people" think that's the "right" thing. It's okay to play by your own rules.

Ya know, the word 'ilk' by itself doesn't have negative connotations. It simply identifies a family or class of people.

The fact is, people like us are an anomaly. We fit neither into the straight world nor the gay world. People on either side don't understand us. But, the fact of the matter is, I'm not sure we understand ourselves. We're just playing with the cards we've been dealt the best way we know how.

I think that a number of the younger ones don't feel the social pressure to try as you and I have, Beck, and that colors their perception. I think that what Mike Kessler has suggested also has bearing. And Foxx may be right. Maybe you're not happy with yourself still. I know I'm struggling with liking myself after 15 years of loathing myself.

hmm...does accepting your gay mean no possibility of falling in love with a woman? Everyone is different, every day in fact, and so I think you can't block out any possibilities, even if you think you could never be that person, or try that thing

FOXX: Thanks for the comment. You are always insightful. You've always reminded me to not worry about others comments. It really comes down to judging others. I'm not taking this personally that others consider "my kind" as ilk. It's more a curiosity that they would and your explanation is helpful.

MIKE said: "It's okay to play by your own rules." I've been doing that my whole life. Some may think otherwise, that I'm playing by the Church's rules, or that I try to bend the rules. I've chosen these rules for me and I'm proud of it - just curious how others see that as "ilk".

ABE: Your comment on being an anomaly is true. We are "ilk" for being gay, particularly from our church and culture in many ways. We are "ilk" for being MOMs and faithful to our marriages from the gay community at large. We can't win on either front.

I know this isn't about "winning" and I'm confident in myself enough to not question my choices, but it is curious to be rejected by both sides. It's like lukewarm water - neither cold nor hot, so spewed out as unacceptable by any.

I'm okay with this. I just find it fascinating as Foxx says how quickly we judge, divide, tear down, exclude, and make others feel unwanted. Again, I'm okay with this... It's just curious.

KENGO: Don't get me wrong - this isn't about me not liking myself (though I've been there / done that way too much)or loathing my situation. It's not even about being accepted or desiring something I can't have. This isn't a post about beating myself up, as it is the strange situation I (and you) find ourselves being isolated, excluded, set-aside by all parties. It's more a comment of subtle realization of the obvious - and I'm okay with that. I only wish it didn't have to be this way and hope the "younger ones... don't color their perceptions" to the point of rejecting our "ilk" outright, just as others may have rejected them for their "ilk" of being openly gay in a straight-church world.

Well, technically "ilk" means "of the same kind" but in common usage has a negative connotation. The odd thing to me is that there are extremely few remotely like you, Beck. It seems this person likes to put people into boxes but can't figure out what box to put you into, so s/he has put you into a box basically labeled "other". I'm not sure what the original post was, but I think you'd be safe in taking what was likely "of their ilk" and substituting "who aren't cool like me." For instance, "I can't stand people who aren't cool like me" instead of "I can't stand people of their ilk." Obviously, anyone who uses "ilk" is not a person who cherishes diversity. Ignore them.

MIKE said: "The odd thing to me is that there are extremely few remotely like you, Beck."

I know, and I'm proud of it! :) Sometimes I think there have to be more of "me" out there somewhere, and that "we" are more numerous than we believe, we're just silently hiding. I would like to think that I'm not that unique that that there are more than an "extremely few remotely like" me.

But I'm okay if there aren't. I just want to be counted and to be accepted and to be considered valid and included in the realm of ideas and options of life, and to not be look upon as peripheral or insignificant just because others cannot fathom making the choices I've made for myself. And yet, I'm okay if I'm not... this isn't a popularity contest. I'm not in it for the accolades. It just feels better if as an "ilk" we aren't so trivialized in the process.

When I wrote "The odd thing to me is that there are extremely few remotely like you, Beck," what I meant was, it's odd to me that someone would use the term "ilk," meaning "of the same kind," for a group that is not only relatively small but is also not causing the writer any personal difficulty. People often have a weird need to identify others "out" so that they can identify as "in".